[flang-commits] [clang] [flang] [flang] Add UNSIGNED (PR #113504)
via flang-commits
flang-commits at lists.llvm.org
Fri Oct 25 02:04:23 PDT 2024
================
@@ -968,21 +968,41 @@ struct BinaryOp {};
fir::FirOpBuilder &builder, \
const Op &, hlfir::Entity lhs, \
hlfir::Entity rhs) { \
- return hlfir::EntityWithAttributes{ \
- builder.create<GenBinFirOp>(loc, lhs, rhs)}; \
+ if constexpr (Fortran::common::TypeCategory::GenBinTyCat == \
+ Fortran::common::TypeCategory::Unsigned && \
+ !std::is_same_v<GenBinFirOp, mlir::arith::DivUIOp>) { \
+ int bits = \
+ Fortran::evaluate::Type<Fortran::common::TypeCategory::Integer, \
+ KIND>::Scalar::bits; \
+ auto signlessType = mlir::IntegerType::get( \
+ builder.getContext(), bits, \
+ mlir::IntegerType::SignednessSemantics::Signless); \
+ auto lhsSL = builder.createConvert(loc, signlessType, lhs); \
----------------
jeanPerier wrote:
Thanks, I understand now, I mistook signless for meaning unsigned here (from an English semantic point of view, using "signless" and "unsigned" has two different things confuses me bit).
I had no idea MLIR arith operation rejected signed/unsigned integers. I am not seeing a strong rational for this other than the _"Existing call sites in tree are changed to use signless integer types now. Dialects can opt in to signed/unsigned integer types as following-up steps if that's desired."_ in [the thread](https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/g/mlir/c/XmkV8HOPWpo/m/7O4X0Nb_AQAJ) that introduced the signed integer concept in MLIR, and that nobody needed arith operations to accept those so nobody changed them.
Anyway, looks good then. There is a possibility that these casts will break pattern matching and canonicalization/optimization, but I am reluctant to go change this core arith dialect without concrete motivation.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113504
More information about the flang-commits
mailing list